>>>>>We're subsidizing deadbeats in housing on the backs of the responsible, why should credit cards be any different?
>>>>
>>>>Looked at another way the 'deadbeats' are subsidising you (and me): The credit card companies can only afford to give us free credit by gouging those who cannot pay in full with almost extortionate interest rates.
>>>
>>>The deadbeats get the same benefits provided by the CC company, no subsidization there.
>>But the 'deadbeats' don't get the same benefits - they are charged a higher interest rate. I understand the CCC's logic but it doesn't change the fact.
>>
>>>If it was only the every-month payors then I'd agree with the analogy.
>>If you pay in full then the interest rate it irrelevant. If it was 100% it wouldn't matter.
>>
>>>The new laws prevent CC companies from holding deadbeats to the Terms all cardholders already agreed to. They've forcibly changed the rules so now CC companies must react. Since they are to be limited on how they raise rates on the deadbeats, and must reset their rates 6 months following a minimum payment, the CCs now must find other ways to recoup those losses.
>>
>>If the debtor just walks away the company's loss is the same regardless of the interest rate. Unless you mean their loss of income based on the high rate they were able to charge.
>
>Income. Businesses do not simply absorb income losses they must make them up or they will no longer be in business.
But if they charge an unsustainable rate they've lost the lot. If they charge a reasonable rate then it's more likely that the debtor could actually make the repayments.

>
>>>>Why would it not be fairer if everyone who used a credit card was charged a reasonable lower rate of interest from the time the purchase was made?
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be fairer to hold everyone accountable for their own actions, namely agreeing to the Terms and choosing to use the cards? Once again we're looking at big brother dictating to private business in the name of "fairness". Good grief!
>>
>>Hasn't the government always dictated, to a certain extent, the behaviour of the banking sector. Seems to me that, with de-regulation, the problem was that the didn't dictate enough.
>>
>>Who are these 'deadbeats' anyway - someone who's inadvertently got into debt?
>Please give me one example of "someone who's inadvertently got into debt". Puh-lease!
>
>>Someone who's not too bright?
>Heavy credit debt affects intelligent and stupid alike.
>
>>Someone who has not received an adequate education?
>If they're in the US...most likely. I've said for years that financial education in this country is pathetic at best and non-existent at worst.
>That being said I'm fairly certain that everyone is still taught to "read before you sign". Many may not actually do it but it's still taught.

They may be taught to 'read before you sign' but if they haven't been taught to read the it's a bit irrelevant......

>
>>IAC, it's obviously their own fault so they should stew in their own juice.......
>Personal responsibility. It's their fault and their responsibility.
See above.